wtncffts

Well, yes, but my point was simply directed towards your use of 'subfield' to describe public law. I was arguing that public law isn't a core part of political science, and I cited the 'elite' schools to that effect. That is, public law is nice to have in a department but is not at all crucial to that department's being a 'full-service' poli sci department. As I suggested earlier, the 'diversity' argument really doesn't stop with JDs. Why not have a psychology PhD? Economics? History? Hell, even biology? (look up 'biopolitics' or 'politics and the life sciences'). Why not have political science PhDs teaching in various other depts. where they may be competent or useful? It seems to me that you simply take issue with the entire 'artifice' of field boundaries and the structure of the academy. I mean, you're not alone in that, and there's some justification for it, but you're not going to get anywhere against tradition and institutional inertia.

'Rankings' are department specific, anyway. I don't know about Alberta's economics department, but as PrettyVacant said, Alberta is certainly up there. I'm not sure what you mean by 'the big 4'; it's not a term I've heard anywhere. UBC, Toronto, McGill, and ??? Queen's? If there's differentiation, it's always, in my experience, the first three and the rest. On your specific question, I'm not sure what you're saying. At least in my field, an MA is required to apply for a PhD at Canadian universities, at least for Canadian students (that is, I know direct-entry American students, but they're exceptional). If you're asking specifically about whether a UBC or Toronto MA gives you an advantage over others, I don't think so. In my view, because most schools here are public, the level and standards of education are pretty similar. An MA from UBC and from, say, Saskatchewan, are quite comparable. As to whether an MA itself is advantageous, it really depends on the work that you've done. Your writing sample, SOP, and letters of recommendation are, from what I gather, the most important parts of your application.

As I said, if you're defining 'subfield' generally, then fine. But the first four (IR, comparative, theory, domestic) are universally recognized as the subfields. If a department doesn't have comparative (and please let me know of one which does not), it really isn't a 'full-service' department. I understand if it's small or poorly-funded that it may not have the resources but any minimally respectable dept. will have at least one or two faculty in comparative, and the requisite intro courses. Public law is on par with specializations, as I noted: methodology, political psychology, public policy/public administration (which I suggest has the greater claim to being on par with the subfields). That's not to say it's not important, at all, just that it's not thought of as the core of the discipline. Since we're (potential) grad students, let's take a look at the field requirements. Harvard: Yale: Princeton: Stanford: Michigan: I could go on, but the pattern will only be confirmed: the four universal subfields are constant, and some others are included when the department has the faculty resources. If anything, political economy and methods seem to be much closer to the core than public law. Again, that's not to say that it isn't a useful or important approach to questions in the discipline, but that it clearly is not recognized as a fundamental or essential part.

I will, of course, try to respond later in more depth. I just want to make a very quick point now, and that is that 'public law' is not, in fact, a generally recognized subfield. The four which are universally recognized are Comparative, IR, theory/philosophy, and American (or Canadian, in my case). Public law, where it is recognized, is usually a specialization, grouped with things like formal methods or political psychology. Now, you may just be using 'subfield' in a more general sense, which is fine. But there are many poli sci departments with no public law at all. The two institutions I've attended did not, and they weren't small departments.

Perhaps you're right, I don't know. But I don't think it's 'part of the job' in the sense that it is mandated. Profs don't get punished or reprimanded for not doing particular recommendations; a student can't complain to the chair or dean about a prof's unwillingness to recommend her. Of course, most profs do write recs because they want their students, especially the promising ones, to succeed.

Well, I certainly agree that students benefit from different perspectives. The question is whether political science as a discipline and an organizational structure within a university has justifiably imperative reasons to incorporate those different perspectives within itself, and any justifiable reasons for keeping the boundaries relatively clear. I think what this basically boils down to is your believing that 'political science' is and should be more permeable than it is, while some of us in disagreement suggest that political science is a distinct, complex and developed set of methods, areas of inquiry, and theoretical assumptions which requires special training. Teaching political science, therefore, ought to be in the service of relating knowledge and appreciation of those distinct characteristics. Now, of course, in reality it doesn't work that way: that's why there's an increasing drive towards interdisciplinary work. Historians, lawyers/legal scholars, psychologists, economists, and so on: each has a recognizable place within 'political science'. Why don't we have PhDs in economics teach IPE? I mean, if we want diverse faculty why stop at JDs and PhDs in political science? No, the point is that the diversity is among different faculties/departments. Your above point could easily extended to others. A poli sci PhD will not be best prepared to answer historical questions, nor questions about economic implications, etc. Clearly, though, we don't employ historians and economists within poli sci faculties just to be 'go-to' people. We recognize that other disciplines have their own legitimate specialties. Political science courses are intended to be introductions both to the substantive material and the culture/methods/'ways of doing things' of the discipline. Thus, instructors in political science need to be able to relate to students such things. They have no especial obligation to know the case law of substantive due process in detail, the federal rules of criminal procedure, or what have you. Just by way of anecdote: I TAed for a US Politics and Government course. This was a full-year (two semester) course, and we spent, if I recall, three or four weeks, at most, on topics that I would consider to be in a JD's wheelhouse. Of course, in the beginning, we did the whole intro to the constitutional system, federalism, etc. We looked at precisely two cases at length, Marbury and McCulloch, and we briefly explicated a few others (Gibbons v. Ogden comes to mind). In discussing the presidency, we ran the usual gamut of presidential power cases: Steel seizure, US v. Nixon, some Bush-era Guantanamo cases. We did a section on civil rights/civil liberties, in which of course, we discussed Brown v. Board, Korematsu, Dennis v. US, Texas v. Johnson, Roe v. Wade, and some others that I can't recall right now. Now, I would venture to say that a legal scholar could do a more in-depth job of teaching the course in these areas. But my point is that the vast majority of the course was spent on areas in which legal training simply doesn't enter into it, or perhaps peripherally so. To go back to a much earlier point in this thread, I think there's simply a misapprehension of what the study of political reality is. For you, it's basically all derivative of the legal/constitutional institutions and structures in a polity. Everything, so to speak, flows from that fundamental source, and so a deep understanding of that source allows one to claim expertise on everything else. This just isn't the case. I generally hate the use of quotes as though they were facts or evidence, but I think Hamlet's line that "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" sums up, if inexactly, my argument.

Of course, if you write a positive letter and the student goes on to do poorly, that doesn't exactly reflect well on the school, no?

I highly doubt that's true. Check your department requirements to make sure, but that doesn't sound like anything I've seen or heard. To my knowledge, there's no difference between international and domestic students in terms of course requirements.

Oh, believe me, I have had my fair share of obnoxious and/or lazy students, and shared in many gripe sessions with fellow TAs. I certainly don't think the OP is as 'bad' a TA as the negative comments may make him/her think. I just tried to point out one criticism which I could easily see as being legitimate on the students' part. Not that the TA doesn't care, but certainly the impression given if a TA is 'sitting in the front of the room' doing his or her own work isn't all that great. Walking around and actively engaging with the students may be a better method.

I don't know, this seems rather dismissive. I think fuzzylogician has it exactly right: don't take them too seriously, but look to what you can improve for the future. Reading your description, you yourself suggest that at least one of the criticisms was essentially right, about you sitting in front of the room (though not about you not caring). Surely, you aren't that pressed for time that you have to do your own work while running a lab; I can see very easily why some students might be irked by that. Perhaps you should be walking around, actively asking and soliciting questions and checking up on things. Were there any positive comments? As you say, voluntary evaluations usually mean you get either the very positive or very negative, but if there were no positive comments, you should consider what you could change for the future.

Thanks, I'll look into it. I love the works of Stanislaw Lem, especially the more humorous, satirical stories like The Cyberiad. Great stuff.

I apologize if my post sounded patronizing, I honestly did not mean it so. I thought the point I was trying to make was that the GRE is a poor indicator of one's intelligence and/or the time spent in studying for it. If I could get pretty high scores without much prep beforehand, and some people get worse scores after studying more, it seems to me there's not much point in general to spending a lot of money and time on it. If you're really rusty on math, I think it does make sense to brush up on the basics, but from what I remember the GRE does not require much more than high school level math. I didn't intend to brag about my "natural talent"; I admitted that much of my GRE performance was luck. I happened to get questions for which I happened to be able to figure out the answer. Believe me, I've done GRE practice tests since and I haven't done as well. As for my first statement, I merely meant that I don't get this philosophy because I don't understand how it works. I mean, how do you know when you've 'studied enough' to reach that critical level? And when you have, do you just stop? I remember when I was a TA and students used to ask me straight out things like "What is the minimum I can do to get a B on my paper", and I was befuddled. I've just never thought like that.

Well, I don't have a specific "pre-admission reading list", but if we're talking more generally about books on the 'to-read' pile (in my case, the books stacked beside my bed), let's see: Leadership, Burns (re-reading this) American Grace, Putnam and Campbell Transforming Leadership, Burns Washington, Chernow Team of Rivals, Goodwin (re-read) Bob Dylan in America, Wilentz An Isaac Asimov robot novel I literally looked to my right and listed what I saw. I've also ordered from Amazon a couple books which should arrive in a couple days: Divided Loyalties, by Brooke Jeffrey, about the Liberal Party of Canada from 1984 to 2008, and Dynasties and Interludes, by Leduc et al., a survey of Canadian federal electoral history. I'm pretty excited by both, they seem like good reads.

Well, I didn't really want to wade into this again, and I don't quite share the characterization of the OP the above poster gives, but I admit I'm also a little frustrated by the seeming imperviousness to reasons on display here. I'll just say one small thing specifically to the above quote, basically reiterating what I and others have said. I'd agree that a JD, ABD or other knowledgeable person may be competent to teach an intro poli sci course, if by teach one means delivering course material which is foundational and essentially follows or shadows a text. As kalapocska said, even a smart undergrad who excelled in the course could conceivably do this. The job of a professor, though, is more than just lecturing or instructing - it's being available to students for questions and, one hopes, guiding especially inquisitive students towards the more complex material. This is where the expertise that should be gained in a PhD program is essential. What happens if a student of yours asks about the "theoretical and methodological approaches one would seek at the graduate level", or some other substantive question that she would expect you to know? Do you just shrug your shoulders and say, "that's not my wheelhouse, go ask someone else" or "save those questions for grad school"? "I'm only an undergrad instructor, stop bothering me with all these pesky difficult questions"? Surely this isn't what students or departments want. Now, of course, being a JD doesn't mean you can't handle such inquiries, nor does a PhD, especially a recently obtained one, mean you can with ease, but all else equal, it's much more likely that PhDs will have the necessary engagement in the field than JDs will. Again, you may feel you would be competent, but we're talking about aggregate trends here, not your specific situation.

I don't mean to be flippant, but your 'goal' should really be 800 on each. I never understood the studying philosophy of aiming for a particular grade rather than just preparing as much as possible and doing your best. For the preparation, I have to say my GRE scores (770 on each part) were obtained through luck and, frankly, previous education. I did no studying at all but for flipping through a guide in a bookstore a couple days prior. I don't know if there's any correlation at all between paying hundreds or thousands of dollars on 'GRE courses' or books and actual performance. The posts on this forum make me think that there's no relation, or even a negative one - I've read some people have gotten worse scores after such efforts. Edit: I did do the free Powerprep tests, but not very rigorously, just to see the kinds of questions that would be asked.

I'm not sure, but I would think that most professors would simply not write a letter if they had no recollection of the student. I mean, the notion is there in the title: you're asking them to say, "hey, this student did good work with or for me and I think they would make an excellent graduate student". If a professor had any amount of intellectual honesty, they wouldn't recommend somebody about whom they have no idea.

I have to echo waddle's point: do not get a recommendation from a high school teacher. A high school teacher cannot remark on your ability to do graduate-level work. It also makes you seem as though you haven't done anything in college. I have to say, with no offense intended, that it doesn't seem like your motivations for wanting to go to grad school are very sound. I mean, feel free to apply, but if you're doing this as a 'fallback' thing and you have little confidence that anything you did in college was remarkable, why do you think you would be accepted and succeed in grad school? Perhaps you're just underplaying your record in college; as waddle said, you might be surprised.

Basically a glorified online poll, no merit in it but I guess it's sort of fun. I'm kind of surprised this (the site in general) got funding from Google and Princeton for what it is.

Speaking for myself, it's sort of a confidence/not wanting to have any regrets kind of thing. I want to give myself the best possible chance of getting in somewhere, and I don't want to regret that I didn't apply to more schools if I don't get in anywhere. One of my recommenders advised me to apply to 7 to 8 schools - a couple top-tier, middle, and "safety" schools. I ended up applying to 11 - two of those weren't really planned but they had no application fees so I went ahead. That probably doesn't sound like a good reason to apply somewhere, but there it goes. Edit: Oops, I forgot to mention that when I applied to MA programs a couple years ago, I only applied to three, and got in one, but to be honest, I'm somewhat less sanguine about my chances this time.

I really don't want to judge because I don't know you or your situation, but quite frankly, I smell the kind of bullshit that used to make me go ARGGGHHHHH when I was a TA. Did you knowingly lie when you said you submitted it? Why didn't you check your e-mail? Why didn't you get the assignment done in the first place? It's your responsibility, not the professor's. I understand sometimes not being able to get papers in right on time, but at this point, your paper should already be late enough as to be worth nothing. At least on the occasions in which I had to deal with late papers, there was some kind of reason or excuse. You say that "I want to tell him I honestly didn’t check my email and only figured that something was up when I checked my grade" but that really isn't the truth, since obviously you knew that you didn't submit the paper. The grade appeal process is supposed to be for circumstances in which there was actual emergency, error, or substantive disagreement about grades. Again, I'm sorry if I'm sounding too critical here, but this really irks me. I hate people trying to game the system. Edit: Ok, I didn't read your last post before posting my comments originally. It's laudable that you say you're going to discuss this with the prof honestly. I hope you get some resolution, though I still maintain what I say above.

Are you asking if the GRE scores were the thing that caused you to be rejected? If so, I don't think you can make that assumption. I think the 710 verbal score is quite good, the quantitative is low but, as you say, I'm guessing it doesn't matter for your field, and I'm not sure what the 700 analytical means. You simply have to face the fact that getting into those schools is incredibly competitive and that your credentials may be outstanding but so are many other applicants who also were rejected. I don't know how it works in your field, but your statement of purpose and writing sample probably also weighed more heavily. And sometimes there's just plain luck.

I've never had a car; I don't even have a driver's license. I've been fortunate to live in places both for undergrad and graduate school where the public transit was excellent. Like everyone's saying, it really depends on the particular location and, I guess, your proximity to the school within that location. There have been a few times when it would be easier to do certain things if I had had a car (mostly transporting heavy and/or large objects), but usually you can get a friend to help out. As for the freedom and spontaneity of having a car, I grant this may be attractive, but with a good public transit system one can do interesting things. I've many a time just gotten on buses without knowing where they go or where they stop, and I'd just get off somewhere unfamiliar and look around. There's a certain exhilarating feeling being semi-lost...

Well, I'm also not familiar with the specifics of your field but a good place to start might be to look at the NRC information: http://graduate-school.phds.org/masters/computer-science Then, you just have to do your homework and go to each school's department website that looks like a good fit and read the information: whether they have GPA cut-offs, etc. Have you taken the GRE? As far as schools which are "willing to give you admission", there are simply no guarantees; you apply and hope for the best. Good luck.

While I'm sure the previous poster was exaggerating, I also feel a kind of rage towards this. To the people who 'admire' this guy, imagine if you were the person who was rejected by a school in favor of him. Of course it took a degree of "audacity and brashness"; so does being involved in identify theft or organized crime. Obviously the crimes aren't comparable, but I could never feel positively towards anyone who perpetrates such deeds. This wasn't a victimless crime; it also hurts people who, like everyone here, put extraordinary time and effort into their intellectual work and do so honestly.

I don't know if this has been posted. It's relevant here because he was a grad student. Very sad, indeed. http://www.huffingto...o_n_805689.html